How many numbers or attempts of flipping a coin do you need to be able to see such a thing?

The job for the mathematicians is to try to put numbers into a context and getting a descriptive and explainable meaning out of it.

The number Pi, or 3.1415926, is such a number. Possibly you may have non-repeating numbers or patterns of numbers here, but the most important thing is that the number of desimals in the fraction is infinite and therefore never ends.

Is chaos made or created from perfect symmetry, or is it perhaps the opposite way around?

Is chaos->order->chaos (or order->chaos->order) possibly a continuous or repeating process and if so, which way does it start or go?

Why does not order always lead to the same - namely order, and chaos always lead to the same - namely chaos? Is it because you always have different factors which are trying to combine or mix these different kinds of elements?

Take prime numbers, for instance. All numbers which are not prime are composite numbers. All positive numbers which are not even numbers (meaning they are odd) are having such properties. We tend to skip the small numbers and a few exceptions among these small ones, the rest we try to find out about.

Take a number like 33183434030525011217 for example.

By just looking at it with your eyes, this number looks unbreakable or undivisible. But giving it a try, you may be able to find out that it is in fact 73*65657*6923368254097. This number is therefore composite and not having the properties of a prime number.

This is as far you get with this number.

Same goes for patterns. In some instances, patterns are made up of equal numbers or series of numbers which repeats endlessly. In other cases you may be able to discern patterns from numbers which possibly may be in series, but otherwise do not relate to each other directly otherwise. We also are able to see such patterns in nature, of course.

Chaos and order do live side by side, but order always comes out on top.

Chaos and Order cannot live without each other, the yin for the yang. But, unlike yin and yang one always tops the other. The coin has not been made because the coin cannot be made, we are not the Maker, we are the made. There is no equal of one and the other. One always comes out on top. Chaos is a byproduct of Order.

We can only imitate what is in nature and we do so incompletely because we ourselves are a product of Chaos and Order. The Designer is Order without Chaos. Since we have Chaos within us we cannot make Order. The best we can do is reflect nature with it's Chaos. We can do no better then nature and nature is with Chaos. Ergo the coin cannot be made. Ergo the math is less then perfect. Ergo we are the product of Chaos with Order being on top.

An example of this taken from the Bible would be the Fallen Nature of man. We are without harmony, we are with Natural Sin.

Is an ionized hydrogen atom the most chaotic state in the universe or the most ordered state in the universe? Where does a regular hydrogen atom fall, more or less chaos? Where does a hydrogen molecule fall, more or less chaos?

Until you answer this you can't begin to understand if DNA is a more or less chaotic state.

According to one branch of chaos theory "order" is actually a state of chaos with a higher level of symmetry. Now life can get very interesting when you start to consider everything as being in a state of symmetric chaos, or a state of un-symmetric chaos (which is different to being in an asymmetric state of chaos, but you don't need to worry about that - yet, as actually asymmetry an un-symmetry are not the same, but are inversions and reversions of each other - at one time I could write down all the Hamiltonian (and other) transformations required to prove that lot for a non-trivial system... Enough to make one's nose bleed on a good day, or drive you to drink on a bad day.

____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

According to one branch of chaos theory "order" is actually a state of chaos with a higher level of symmetry. Now life can get very interesting when you start to consider everything as being in a state of symmetric chaos, or a state of un-symmetric chaos (which is different to being in an asymmetric state of chaos, but you don't need to worry about that - yet, as actually asymmetry an un-symmetry are not the same, but are inversions and reversions of each other - at one time I could write down all the Hamiltonian (and other) transformations required to prove that lot for a non-trivial system... Enough to make one's nose bleed on a good day, or drive you to drink on a bad day.

Obviously, as you don't understand a few of the basics enlightening you is going to be a long, hard task.
First, symmetry is (and this is a simple, but inaccurate definition) is the ability to, by rotation, inversion, reflection, or supposition, or combinations thereof to produce an image that appears to be the mirror of the object you are studying. With me - it gets harder from here...
Chaos is the property assigned to the number of non-symetric rotations, reflections, or inversions required to demonstrate that two images (or objects) are not linearly, or non-linearly related to each other in a simplistic manner. Simply put, if you can't easily predict where an image or object is going to be, or look like it is said to have a highly chaotic nature.

Of course, at this point I should introduce the statistical elements required to assist in the study. These are used to reduce the complex nature of the problem into one that is understandable - for a fuller explanation I suggest you go and have a good few terms (semesters) studying statistics in an applied field such as radio astronomy, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics - This period of study may give you a better understanding of why your suppositions of recent weeks have been rather weak on the ground, and not a coherent answer to what is actually a very important question - do scientists ever place theory over observable fact? (I believe this question is indeed a paraphrase of the one you choose to interpret as the thread title - which actually asks a different, equally as important question: "Do scientists ever let their system of beliefs get in the way of their work?")

____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Obviously, as you don't understand a few of the basics enlightening you is going to be a long, hard task.

I have time...

First, symmetry is (and this is a simple, but inaccurate definition) is the ability to, by rotation, inversion, reflection, or supposition, or combinations thereof to produce an image that appears to be the mirror of the object you are studying. With me - it gets harder from here...

So far...

Chaos is the property assigned to the number of non-symetric rotations, reflections, or inversions required to demonstrate that two images (or objects) are not linearly, or non-linearly related to each other in a simplistic manner. Simply put, if you can't easily predict where an image or object is going to be, or look like it is said to have a highly chaotic nature.

Why non-symetric? In nature nothing is a perfect anything. So, if Chaos is non-symetric in nature so would be Order. But Order here is also not perfect. I don't follow you all the way here. I understand that the reflections, or inversions will not line up but even with that why do you think they cannot be predicted? I understand that everything in nature is highly chaotic but in the end we have something not nothing so in the end we have Order as Designed, not random. I believe that there are a few things in nature that are a perfect something, a singularity perfectly round. And the reflections of it on the inside of the event horizon for what it has taken in are a perfect example of what it has taken in. Information is never lost. Perfect.

Is there nothing absolute with you? Is there nothing with you that is absolutely wrong? Or, is there something you call absolutely the truth?

Of course, at this point I should introduce the statistical elements required to assist in the study. These are used to reduce the complex nature of the problem into one that is understandable - for a fuller explanation I suggest you go and have a good few terms (semesters) studying statistics in an applied field such as radio astronomy, nuclear physics, quantum mechanics - This period of study may give you a better understanding of why your suppositions of recent weeks have been rather weak on the ground, and not a coherent answer to what is actually a very important question - do scientists ever place theory over observable fact? (I believe this question is indeed a paraphrase of the one you choose to interpret as the thread title - which actually asks a different, equally as important question: "Do scientists ever let their system of beliefs get in the way of their work?")

It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Thanks, but am I not a good man without it? Is it required, to be a better man?

It would be pure chance which reveals an underlying structure--you may call it design but I could write an equation for the shape of the resulting curve from logic and math. Not so hard to understand if you study probability and statistics and while you are at it throw in a little formal logic. You will be the better man for it !!

Thanks, but am I not a good man without it? Is it required, to be a better man?

Either you would be convinced by what many of us have said or have real "weaponry" to use in your debates.

Oh, what strange. In fact I double-checked this number. What is the next prime number, by the way?

This number can therefore not be even, but it should be clear that such factorization could return the individual patterns or structures where the complete structure is based on these individual elements.

In the same way an E.T. could equally well be Battlestar Galactica or the Death Star / Darth Vader's command ship as it could be the shining blue-white "Star Queen Nebula" M16, which is located in the constellation of Serpens Cauda.

Oh, what strange. In fact I double-checked this number. What is the next prime number, by the way?

This number can therefore not be even, but it should be clear that such factorization could return the individual patterns or structures where the complete structure is based on these individual elements.

In the same way an E.T. could equally well be Battlestar Galactica or the Death Star / Darth Vader's command ship as it could be the shining blue-white "Star Queen Nebula" M16, which is located in the constellation of Serpens Cauda.

So order is now supposed to be the result of, or coming out of chaos and randomness.

Can a divine creator behind the Universe be explained if we rather accept chaos and randomness as nature's fundamental building blocks?

Scientists are trying to merge both Newton's laws and Einstein's Theories of Relativity (both special and general theory of relativity) into the Quantum Theory.

But what is the Quantum Theory all about then? Is it perhaps all about particles and their behavior at the atomic or sub-atomic level? Also particles are responsible for energy and energy structures. It is perhaps more difficult to explain the behavior or inner workings of energy than perhaps matter (by means of particles) itself.

That depends on your measuring technique.
A particle of wood buried in one's hand is intangible to normal x-ray techniques, but is tangible to the sufferer and a trained observer. In the same sort of way an atom is intangible when you use an optical microscope, but use the correct electron microscope it can be observed. Electrons are less tangible because of their relatively high velocities. By the time we get to the Bosons the problems get bigger, because the velocities get higher, while the dimensions (linear for now) get smaller, but given the right equipment, and the right measuring conditions you can visualise them (think back to that wood particle in your hand - given the right x-ray equipment it can be observed).
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

I still predict that particles and things can travel at faster than light speed, without breaking any of Einstein's theories. I don't know how, I'm not a scientist, but I am absolutely sure it is possible.